Scribd
Upload
84 views1 page

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES THRU PRIVATE COMPLAINANT BRIAN VICTOR BRITCHFORD vs. SALVADOR ALAPAN

The petitioner filed charges against Salvador Alapan for 8 counts of violating the Bouncing Checks Law after Alapan issued 8 postdated checks that bounced. Alapan was convicted and fined by the trial court. When Alapan failed to pay the fine, the petitioner filed a motion to impose subsidiary imprisonment, which was denied by both the trial and appellate courts. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner lacked legal standing to question the trial court's order regarding the criminal penalty, as the private complainant's interest is limited to civil liability and the criminal case is under the control of the state prosecutor.

Uploaded by

anna
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
84 views1 page

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES THRU PRIVATE COMPLAINANT BRIAN VICTOR BRITCHFORD vs. SALVADOR ALAPAN

The petitioner filed charges against Salvador Alapan for 8 counts of violating the Bouncing Checks Law after Alapan issued 8 postdated checks that bounced. Alapan was convicted and fined by the trial court. When Alapan failed to pay the fine, the petitioner filed a motion to impose subsidiary imprisonment, which was denied by both the trial and appellate courts. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner lacked legal standing to question the trial court's order regarding the criminal penalty, as the private complainant's interest is limited to civil liability and the criminal case is under the control of the state prosecutor.

Uploaded by

anna
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES THRU PRIVATE COMPLAINANT BRIAN VICTOR

BRITCHFORD vs. SALVADOR ALAPAN


G.R. No. 199527, January 10, 2018

MARTIRES, J.:

Facts: Accused-appellant Salvador Alapan and his wife Myrna Alapan were charged
with 8 counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 after they borrowed ₱400,000.00 and issued 8
postdated checks in favor of petitioner Brian Victor Britchford. The checks were
dishonored when they were deposited. Upon arraignment, they pleaded not guilty to the
charges.

The Municipal Trial Court convicted Alapan of 8 counts of violation of B.P. Big. 22 with a
penalty of fine instead of imprisonment. After a writ of execution was issued, the writ
was returned unsatisfied. Petitioner thus filed a Motion to Impose Subsidiary Penalty for
respondent's failure to pay the fine imposed by the MTC.

Both the MTC and RTC denied the motion. Likewise, the CA dismissed the petition for it
was filed without the intervention of the Office of the Solicitor General.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner has legal standing to question the trial court's order.

Ruling: Petitioner lacks legal standing to question the trial court's order.

Jurisprudence has already settled that the interest of the private complainant is limited
only to the civil liability arising from the crime.

In this case, respondent was convicted of eight (8) counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 for
which he was imposed the penalty of fine instead of imprisonment pursuant to
Administrative Circulars No. 12-2000 and 13-2001. Thus, the penalty of fine and the
imposition of subsidiary imprisonment in case of nonpayment thereof pertain to the
criminal aspect of the case. On the other hand, the indemnification for the face value of
the dishonored checks refers to the civil aspect of the case. Consequently, petitioner
could not appeal the imposition of fine as penalty which was not even questioned by the
People through the OSG. To do so would be tantamount to giving the private prosecutor
the direction and control of the criminal proceeding, contrary to the provisions of law.

You might also like